Israel could learn a thing or two from the Kenyan High Court’s rebuttal of efforts to lock up asylum seekers.

There are judges in Nairobi [1], and they are more courageous and much more familiar with refugee law than judges in Jerusalem.

A Kenyan court last month published a ruling on a government decision to round up asylum seekers from urban areas and put them in refugee camps, from which they will need permits to leave.

There are around 600,000 asylum seekers in Kenya. At the end of 2012, the Kenyan government published a new policy saying that asylum seekers will no longer be able to live in cities, that it won’t register their asylum claims in cities, and that they must take it upon themselves to relocate to refugee camps.

Human rights organizations and a number of asylum seekers filed a petition against the decision and the authorities, and the court issued an injunction against the implementation the policy until it could make a decision. (In Israel, the High Court allowed the administrative detention of more than 2,000 men, women and children, and isn’t rushing to decide on the question of the Anti-Infiltration Law’s constitutionality. It didn’t even cross the court’s mind to freeze use of the law until it ruled on it.)

Imagine the Israeli deputy attorney general’s Kenyan counterpart, standing with a frozen drink in her hand, urging her superiors to adopt various measures to make asylum seekers lives miserable in order to deter them from coming to Kenya. Imagine a Kenyan state attorney standing in court, screaming that ‘they’re all work infiltrators and not refugees,’ that ‘Kenya is the only developed country that shares land borders with Somalia and Ethiopia’ (from where most its asylum seekers arrive), and that the draconian measures ‘were written in order to prevent ‘infiltrators’ from setting roots in Kenya’s cities.’

The Kenyan court did not accept the authorities’ claims; instead, it ruled that concentrating asylum seekers in refugee camps was illegal. The court based its decision on Article 26 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which guarantees freedom of movement for asylum seekers; it ruled that their confinement in refugee camps violates the convention and Kenya’s own laws. Additionally, the court explained that forcibly transferring asylum seekers to refugee camps is likely to encourage them to return to their home countries. Encouraging “voluntary repatriation” by Kenyan...

Last week Army Radio reported that real estate agencies in south Tel Aviv are advertising “clean apartments.” According to Army Radio’s web site, a real estate agent said, “we don’t let foreign workers rent the apartments. If there are foreigners, then they’re Nepali or Filipino – normal people.” Whoever listened to the radio broadcast could hear the agent say, “not blacks.” For some unknown reason, those two words were omitted from Army Radio’s report on the web.

Presumably we won’t hear the prime minister, president, or any senior official condemn this phenomenon. Anyone monitoring what is going on here shouldn’t be surprised. If the State of Israel believes that asylum seekers belong in administrative detention in a hot prison in the desert, why wouldn’t it be legitimate for individuals to declare that they won’t rent apartments to those asylum seekers? If the Interior Ministry insists on a country free of asylum seekers, why shouldn’t real estate agents declare that apartments don’t have “infiltrators.”

In recent months the State of Israel has been abusing asylum seekers in a manner that makes us miss former interior minister Eli Yishai. Yishai the racist was very vocal in expressing his desire to embitter the lives of asylum seekers. But his replacement, who refrains from making dramatic announcements, and the executive branch are advancing a heretofore unknown policy. The state is working hard to advance weapons deals aimed at convincing dictatorships to rid Israel of the unwanted waste currently in the country.

The attorney general, his deputy, and several other aides have been drafting new regulations for the Interior Ministry in recent weeks, including a procedure allowing incarceration without trial for an indefinite period of time for individuals suspected of misdemeanors including stealing telephones or bicycles, or a procedure allowing for the “voluntary return” of asylum seekers (complete free will – a choice between endless rotting in an Israeli prison or the threat of persecution in their country of origin). Those people in the Justice Ministry certainly sleep well at night when they tell themselves that they are just small technicians helping implement the decisions of others, as is customary in these parts.

The Supreme Court recently ordered that the rule of law be enforced when it comes to Tel Aviv shuttering businesses on the Sabbath. But the court is inconsistent with its own demands, only ordering that ‘the law is the law’ when it’s convenient.

These are confusing times. Our friends don’t know what to think, and opinions on Facebook are mixed. We are here to analyze things honestly and, as always, though the most important prism – the prism of migration.

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality’s policy of not enforcing the municipal bylaw barring the opening of businesses on the Sabbath is illegal, and ordered the municipality to reconsider its policy. In effect, the court determined that the municipality must choose one of two options – enforce the ban or change the municipal bylaw barring the opening of businesses on the Sabbath, if it believes that such a ban should not be in place in Tel Aviv.

People got riled up on Facebook. Some of our friends were upset, as they oppose a ban on working or opening businesses on the Sabbath. Others were pleased with the ruling, although they oppose the forced closure of businesses on the Sabbath. At last, the latter believe, the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality will no longer be able to play the game in which it tries to please everyone by leaving the problematic regulation in the law book, yet does not enforce it. At present the municipality imposes fines on businesses that are open on the Sabbath, while it conveys that buying the right to violate the law is an option. In so doing, the municipality discriminates against small businesses that cannot and do not want to be open on the Sabbath in order to compete with the large chains; the small businesses can’t pay the fines if they were to stay open, while the big super market chains – AM:PM and Tiv Taam – can easily pay the fines. According to those pleased with the ruling, Mayor Ron Huldai will have to face his moment of truth: enforce the rule of law and clarify that the law is a serious thing that should be respected, and not just when it is convenient.

The latest proposition, offered by Judge Elyakim Rubinstein in his opinion on businesses in Tel Aviv-Jaffa, could have been fascinating if the Supreme Court treated it seriously....

Israeli society is undergoing a process by which the words ‘Eritrean’ and ‘Sudanese’ are becoming synonymous with the word ‘cleaner,’ while ‘Filipina’ has long ago become synonymous with ‘caregiver.’ And who else is behind the education process if not the Interior Ministry and the Justice Ministry?

The job market in Israel has always been divided along nearly impenetrable national and “racial” lines; the Knesset, like the Supreme Court, is careful to maintain the divisions. In the past the divisions were primarily between Mizrahi Jews, Muslim Arabs, and Christian Arabs. These days there are different groups as well. There is a direct link between a recent Supreme Court decision on caregivers’ salaries and a law banning “infiltrators” from sending money out of Israel, which passed in its second and third readings in the Knesset last week.

In accordance with the law that passed in the second and third readings in the Knesset last week, “infiltrators” will be barred from sending the money that they earned outside of Israel. The law will apply primarily to asylum seekers from Sudan and Eritrea (who comprise 90% of “infiltrators”). These are two groups that the State of Israel does not deport, as it recognizes that deporting them will put their lives in danger; the state also refuses to recognize them as refugees. They are present absentees in Israel, living on the edge of the law – they cannot work but “benefit” from a stated policy (backed by the Supreme Court) of lack of enforcement on the ban on their employment.

The new law establishes a default, according to which when an “infiltrator” leaves Israel, he or she will be able to take property with a value that does not exceed the minimum wage multiplied by the number of months they spent in Israel. The individual will have to prove that every shekel beyond that amount of money belongs to him or her legally. Creating a close connection between the amount of money a person may take out of the country and the minimum wage reinforces the stereotype of the “infiltrator” as someone who necessarily works in unskilled labor and earns minimum wage (or less), and that there is no chance that he or she would be able to accrue a sum exceeding the minimum wage. If one’s savings are found to exceed the minimum wage, the money certainly belongs to someone else. Perhaps someone asked them to...

Although the Israeli government is actively pursuing a detention regime meant to snare as many asylum seekers as possible, some recent legal victories provide a ray of light during an increasingly dark time for asylum seekers and refugees in Israel.

By Noa Yachot and Adi Lerner

The last year hasn’t been a good one for refugees and asylum seekers in Israel – or for those advocating on their behalf. Since an amendment to the Prevention of Infiltration Law was passed in January 2012, almost all change in the field of refugee rights has been for the worse, with the nascent asylum system in Israel making way for an unyielding detention regime. All asylum seekers arriving in Israel can now be detained for an unknown period, despite the fact that a vast majority of them cannot be deported. The law allows for a vague “humanitarian” exception – but despite the tireless work of refugee rights advocates, the state has adamantly refused to recognize the humanitarian grounds of even the most vulnerable of cases. When it comes to African refugees, the detention regime does not discriminate; as a result, small children are imprisoned, as are scores of survivors of unimaginably brutal torture at the hands of human smugglers in the Sinai Peninsula.

The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the law next month. But in the meanwhile, advocates have scored some important victories in lower courts in recent weeks. And while up to 2,000 bona fide refugees remain imprisoned, leaving much work to be done, these victories are worth both reporting and celebrating.

Release of imprisoned children

One particularly exciting win came in the case of a mother and her two daughters, 8 and 11, from Eritrea. The three had been imprisoned in the Saharonim detention center for about 10 months. In their case, brought by Raya Meiler of the Hotline for Migrant Workers, the Be’er Sheva District Court held that the children, by virtue of being minors, have “special humanitarian grounds” justifying their release. Since the passage of the amended Prevention of Infiltration Law, the state had allowed only for the release of unaccompanied minors, while children who arrived with a parent remained in the vast desert prison.

Judge Yosef Alon rejected this position, and stated that the release of all minors on humanitarian grounds should be subject to judicial discretion. In this particular case, he determined that the...

Israel’s judges rarely question whether the Interior Ministry may not actually be an expert on immigration matters, or whether it might be making decisions without asking the right questions – even when someone’s life is on the line.

The courts generally accept any, or nearly any, factual claim provided by the Interior Ministry regarding individuals whose requests for status in Israel were rejected. Judge Daphne Barak Erez’s dissenting opinion in the verdict recently handed down by the Supreme Court reveals (a small portion of) the techniques used by the Interior Ministry to review facts. The dissenting opinion, presented in light of the ruling handed down by Judge Uri Shoham, also clarifies why despite the Interior Ministry’s unprofessional conduct, appealing to the courts is rarely beneficial. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion presented by Judge Barak Erez, who is an expert on administrative law, demonstrates how classic administrative law generally prevents an honest examination of the injustices carried out by state authorities.

Tatiana, the heroine of the verdict, is a Ukranian national (a Ukranian “subject,” as per Judge Shoham, as if referring to a heroine from feudal times). Tatiana was involved with an Israeli citizen; she was arrested, deported to the Ukraine, then married her Israeli partner and returned to Israel. Following various delays, she began the “gradual process” – in the framework of which she was granted a temporary residence permit – that was to conclude with her being granted citizenship after four and a half years. But her husband passed away before the process concluded.

In accordance with its procedures, the Interior Ministry conducted a hearing to determine whether the death of Tatiana’s husband should result in her deportation from Israel or whether she may be permitted to continue to reside in the country. According to Interior Ministry regulations, the option of remaining in Israel in such a case is granted to those who prove that their bond with Israel exceeds their connection to their home country. But not one person explained to Tatiana what she had to prove. Had she known that her connection to Israel, as compared to her bond to the Ukraine, was the crux of the matter, she may have brought forth evidence. How can you prove your connection to Israel when you don’t even know that that is being asked of you?

In the framework of the petition to the district court, Tatiana requested to provide...

In the United Kingdom, the ‘Anne Frank’ principle makes way for even more creative methods to reject homosexual asylum seekers.

When Oscar Wild wrote his in essay, “The Truth of Masks,” about the metaphysical significance of costumes and props in Shakespeare’s plays, he likely didn’t imagine that lesbians seeking asylum in the United Kingdom would need to familiarize themselves with his writing and with props of a different type (which were likely not used in Shakespeare’s plays). But it turns out that a lack of knowledge of his work, or of the use of dildos, could send lesbians to their deaths.

Let’s take a few of steps back. The UK asylum system is considered quite strict, relatively to many others in the “West.” (It goes without saying, of course, that compared with the State of Israel’s asylum system, it is an asylum seeker’s dream – last year, the refugee recognition rate in the UK was 25.1 percent, or 5,461 in absolute numbers, as opposed to less than 0.1 percent in Israel.) In contrast with Israel, where not one person, to date, as been recognized as a refugee on the grounds of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity, quite a few asylum seekers were recognized on those grounds in the UK. However, until 2010, asylum seekers who claimed persecution on sexual orientation or gender identity grounds were forced to pass tests with utterly arbitrary results. Asylum seekers who claimed persecution on the grounds of their sexual orientation had to prove that concealing their orientation in their country of origin, if it meant evading persecution, was “unreasonable” in their case. Only in cases where this concealment was unreasonable would the state authorities grant asylum. The test was dubbed by many the “Anne Frank principle” – i.e. in which circumstances would it have been reasonable or unreasonable to require that Anne Frank hide in an attic to avoid persecution?

All that changed in 2010, when the UK’s supreme court struck down that test. In a ruling in the case of an Iranian and a Cameroonian asylum seeker, it was determined that asylum seekers should not be obligated to hide their sexual orientation in order to evade persecution. The court also ruled that an asylum application should not be rejected even if the applicant, upon being deported, could be expected to avoid persecution through living “discretely.”

On Holocaust Remembrance Day, Netanyahu talked about how Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany were turned away by countries around the world. Considering the Netanyahu government’s standards for processing asylum claims, would Jewish refugees have been accepted by today’s Israel?

“The gates of [the land of Israel] were locked to Jewish refugees, as were the gates of most countries, if not all of them, including the most enlightened ones.” (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech on Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony, April 7, 2013)

Bibi, why are you lying? They’re not refugees.

First of all, everyone knows what the economic situation in Germany was after the First World War. People ran away in order to have something to live on.

Second, when they were asked why they came to the countries they arrived in, they said that they wanted to live better lives than they had in Germany. Real refugees never talk about their quality of life.

Third, there is no such thing as “the gates of most countries.” Real refugees always stay in the nearest country of refuge, the first one they arrive in, and don’t travel to “the gates of most countries.”

Fourth, none of them, not one, filled out forms, nor did they submit asylum requests in any country. Real refugees don’t fill out forms.

Fifth, when some of them were interviewed, contradictions were found in their stories. One time their windows were smashed in at 11:58 at night on November 9, and another time at 12:04 a.m. on November 10. One time seven people shattered their windows, and another time eight. Real refugees remember, and don’t make mistakes about such things.

Sixth, none of them, ever, was recognized as a refugee. Real refugees are always recognized.

Seventh, if they were real refugees it would have been forbidden to return them to the countries they fled. Despite that, they were returned to Europe – or in a coordinated return immediately after arriving in different countries, or voluntarily after they complained about not being allowed to work and live and that life was really difficult – and no court, ever, said it was forbidden.

Eighth, what was done to them? They conscripted them and sent them to camps in order to work a little for their countries? You didn’t go to the army to serve your country? Everyone who had a grueling army experience is considered a refugee?

The fact that Israel chooses to base its nursing sector on migrant workers and turn the patients into employers does not mean that migrant workers must pay the price. That is, unless one listens to the rulings of the High Court of Justice.

Those who do not appear before the High Court of Justice may mistakenly believe that legal proceedings are conducted there. The sides make claims, at length, and prove their statements. The judges press them, requesting additional evidence. While we inherited the High Court of Justice from the British, this is no House of Lords. Legal proceedings are conducted in the House of Lords. High-Level Babble is conducted at the High Court of Justice.

High-Level Babble deals with issues that are on the agenda, and repeats banal slogans. You can say whatever you want in High-Level Babble, share your duty free experiences, and draw conclusions based on what you heard on the radio, read in the paper distributed for free on the bus, or heard in a other High-Level Babble. There’s no need to delve deep, and proof is not required. Lively High-Level Babble will conclude with a decision on whoever is the loudest, or an understanding that there are different views, and in the harshest cases it will conclude with the recognition that this is an issue that the Knesset must handle. Oh, yeah – participants in High-Level Babble are predominantly male.

The problem is that sometimes High-Level Babble in the High Court of Justice results in verdicts. In a verdict handed down more than three years ago, the judges – two males and a female – assumed what was best for migrant workers (sorry, the verdict determines that she is not a “migrant worker,” as there are no migrant workers in Israel, there are only “foreign workers”), and what is best for them is to work as caregivers without getting paid overtime. Why? Because it is common knowledge that they are poor in their home countries, and they come here, and all of our goodness is bestowed on them, so even if we take a little from them, their lives here are still golden compared to what could have been had they stayed in the decrepit places from which they came. Plus we can’t forget the flip side, which is no walk in the park – those taken care of by the nurses, their employers, who...

Instead of giving asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt, as international law prescribes, in Israel, the district courts find doubts, the Supreme Court approves their decisions, and persecuted peoples are deported before the merits of their cases can be examined. Everyone can sleep soundly.

Israel’s asylum system is designed to allow everyone, aside from asylum seekers, to sleep soundly. The chairman of the Advisory Committee on Refugees said in an interview last year that he sleeps soundly when he rejects asylum requests, because he knows that if he has erred, the court will rectify the mistake. District court judges who reject petitions filed by individuals who were not recognized as refugees sleep soundly because they mistakenly think that the asylum system is comprised of professionals with expertise, and because they likely think that the Supreme Court will rectify mistakes that they make. And Supreme Court justices sleep soundly because they too are convinced that professionals manage the asylum system, and that district court judges have thoroughly reviewed whether an appellant faces any danger. And since no one feels responsible for the fate of an asylum seeker if a mistake is made, everyone can sleep soundly, dreaming of an Israel free of foreigners.

Tel Aviv District Court Judge Kobi Vardy plays a central role in the national project of refugee denial and deporting “foreigners” in Israel, and the Supreme Court backs him. When a petition is filed against a decision made by the unit handling asylum seekers, the first to review it is Judge Vardy, who decides whether to grant an injunction preventing the appellant’s deportation until a decision on the appeal is made. In the past year Judge Vardy adopted the practice of rejecting dozens of appeals outright, without reviewing them, as he saw no grounds to do so.

Rejecting a legal proceeding outright is a practice that, in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling, is supposed to take place only rarely. But not when it comes to those claiming that their lives are in danger in their home countries; a significant number of asylum seekers are deported prior to any deliberations on Judge Vardy’s decisions.

A few months ago Judge Vardy rejected outright an appeal by a lesbian asylum seeker from Colombia who claimed that her life was in danger in her home country due to her sexual orientation. In the framework of an appeal to the...

It is clear that through its decision to leave the asylum seeker in custody, the court refused to recognized his particular situation. Thus, it rejected the possibility that will forever remain open before us: the possibility – which is both an obligation and a right — to discover compassion.

By Asaf Weitzen

Judge Eliyahu Beitan of the Be’er Sheva District Court recently handed down a decision on an appeal filed by Raya Meiler of the Hotline for Migrant Workers, ordering the continued detainment of an Eritrean asylum seeker, despite him being recognized as a victim of severe torture.

Among the explanations given in the decision is a phrase, according to which recognition of a victim of torture on humanitarian grounds, which justifies release from prison, is likely to cause severe consequences. Not in relation to Israeli citizens, rather — and pay attention — regarding asylum seekers themselves: “It appears to me that recognizing [victims of] torture like those described by the appellant as a justifiable circumstance for release from custody, is likely to lead an increase in the phenomenon of torture and to a deterioration, and even to the creation of a phenomenon among infiltrators of self-inflicted harm. And that, in this case, is not desirable.”

Two things can be understood from this self-righteous statement:

Firstly, it appears the court has internalized, to some degree, that Israeli prison is a terrible, hopeless place, to the point that asylum seekers would do everything — including attempts to harm themselves — in order to be freed. Particularly since Israel began imprisoning people under the anti-Infiltrator Law.

Secondly, the attempt at justifying the decision not to release a man as if it is for his own good (and for the good of the group of asylum seekers to which he belongs) testifies to an embarrassing self-righteousness and cowardliness. The court is able to decide whether to release asylum seekers from custody (the appeal contained a wealth of legal and factual justifications for doing so). Alternatively, it could have clarified that the appeal was rejected due to the interests of the State of Israel, which has decided not to recognize asylum seekers as refugees and not release even a single one. Instead, the court adopted a pathetic and righteous rhetorical gesture. The judge may pat himself on the back and say that his decision not to release a single person aids asylum seekers by preventing...

Since it began processing requests itself, Israel has approved only one asylum request, an albino girl from the Ivory Coast. Now the RSD unit is recommending that another albino asylum seeker be recognized as a refugee. Spread the word – albinos of Africa unite and come to Israel, you’ll be recognized as refugees here. On the other hand, if you’re black Africans, you’ll find nothing here.

Breaking news: the Interior Ministry’s Refugee Status Determination (RSD) Unit, which deals with asylum seekers, will recommend – for the third time in three and a half years – that an individual be recognized as a refugee. The refugee slated to be recognized is an albino Nigerian national who may be persecuted if he is deported due to his albinism.

To date, from the thousands of requests that have been reviewed, the RSD unit has only provided the certifying bodies with two positive recommendations to recognize individuals as refugees; out of those two, only one was recognized as a refugee. In that case the individual was an albino girl from the Ivory Coast (a recommendation to recognize a Libyan national as a refugee was rejected by the Advisory Committee for Refugees).

A few days ago, the Population, Immigration and Borders Authority published its annual report with misleading data regarding the rate of refugee recognition by the RSD unit. The report details the number of asylum seekers recognized as refugees every year since the unit was established, in 2009 (a total of 22 refugees). The innocent reader will surmise that since its establishment the RSD unit reviewed 22 cases and recognized those individuals as refugees. However, of the 22 asylum requests that were approved, 21 were not reviewed by the RSD unit. Prior to 2009, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reviewed asylum requests in Israel, and in July of that year this responsibility was transferred to the Interior Ministry’s RSD unit. UNHCR continued to handle open cases, and many of them were stuck for extended periods of time, and their approvals were unrelated to the establishment of the RSD unit. Only one approved asylum request – the albino girl from the Ivory Coast – was the result of a positive recommendation by the RSD unit, and now the unit is recommending that another albino asylum seeker be recognized as a refugee.

Spread the word – albinos of Africa unite and come to Israel, you’ll...

The Interior Ministry declared Sanait Tesfauneh, an asylum-seeker from Eritrea, a ‘threat to public security’ and placed her in administrative detention after she was suspected of purchasing a forged work permit. Now, several organizations are attempting to challenge the detention system that deprives asylum seekers of their civil liberties.

Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables was published in 1862. Over the years the book became the most famous indictment against the treatment of the weak by society, authorities, and the law. Hugo tells the tale of Jean Valjean who was unable to find work to support his family, so he smashed a bakery window and stole a loaf of broad. For this he was jailed for many years. “What a mournful moment is that in which society withdraws itself and abandons irreparably a thinking being forever,” Hugo writes. “So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilization, artificially creates hells on earth…books like this cannot be useless,” Hugo predicted 150 years ago in the book’s preface, and didn’t know how right he was.

The year is 2012. Sanait Tesfauneh, an Eritrean woman who arrived in Israel, is suspected of purchasing a forged work permit that will allow her to work and support herself. She did not stand trial and was not convicted. Israeli authorities stripped her of any human rights or defense and jailed her for an unspecified amount of time. The Supreme Court approved this last week.

According to Interior Ministry policy, Eritreans are not deported from Israel due to the danger they face in their home country. The Interior Ministry refers to this as a “non-deportation policy.” Yet the Interior Ministry does not grant Eritreans work permits when they are released from prison. They are given residency permits for several months, which are extended, and explicitly state that they are not work permits. There is also a “non” part of this policy – non-enforcement. In other words, Eritreans may not work, they may not be employed, but the Interior Ministry declared that it would not enforce this ban and would not fine employers. The Supreme Court approved this policy.

Tesfauneh had a permit that stated on it that she could not work. She faced challenges, like many others, finding a job and supporting herself. When she finally found a housekeeping position at a Tel Aviv hotel she...

About +972 Magazine

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.